This copy is for your personal non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies of Toronto Star content for distribution to colleagues, clients or customers, or inquire about permissions/licensing, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com

Defining what is and isn't "clean technology" can sometimes be a challenging exercise, particularly when talking about nuclear energy.

As a form of power generation, nuclear reactors generate virtually no greenhouse gas emissions and, for that reason, are pitched by many as crucial in our battle against climate change. But nuclear, which produces highly radioactive fuel waste that remains dangerous for thousands of years, could hardly be called a friend to the environment.

Hence the problem: Do we consider nuclear energy a clean technology in an age determined to halt global warming, or do we ignore it because of its other – quite significant – environmental shortcomings?

Can it be ignored? Sure, one can protest the construction of a new nuclear plant in southern Ontario, only to look at China's plan to build 30 reactors by 2020. If you're hardcore anti-nuclear, it's a depressing thought.

Personally, I'm not a fan of either nuclear or coal, but forced to take the lesser of both evils I'd likely choose nuclear. And since many of these decisions are happening outside of our province and country, I do see room for clean-technology innovation within the nuclear industry as a way to keep waste and proliferation issues in check.

Last Friday, federally owned Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. announced it had signed an agreement with the Nuclear Power Institute of China to collaborate on the "design, research, development and demonstration" of what was termed "low uranium consumption Candu technologies."

Within this, they specifically referred to "recycling recovered uranium from spent Pressurized Water Reactors fuel."

Reading between the lines, this is a potentially important development. Last February I wrote a story about the ability of AECL's Candu reactors to use the spent fuel from rival light-water reactors as fuel. The process is called DUPIC (direct use of spent pressurized water reactor fuel in Candus).

Canada, in partnership with South Korea, has been working on the process for 15 years, and has made some significant progress. If it ever does prove commercially viable, it could solve many problems (see "The Candu" at right).

China, he says, already relies on nuclear power and has big plans to expand, but it also has to import most of its uranium. "So they're very conscious of being fuel efficient."

Hopwood says the initial work with Chinese nuclear authorities won't be around DUPIC directly. Current methods for recycling spent light-water fuel results in some recovered uranium that can't economically be put back into light-water reactors. AECL is helping China on plans to use that uranium in its two existing Candu reactors.

"This is not as high-tech a solution as the DUPIC solution, but it will pave the way toward what we believe to be the ultimate, which is the DUPIC cycle," says Hopwood. "Chinese authorities have recognized the value of this, and are very interested in working with us."

There are lots of light-water reactors in the United States, too.

AECL's competitors, as you would expect, are down on DUPIC. "This is a scientifically exciting and industrially unrealistic technology," says one executive at a rival reactor firm.

But even Westinghouse, one of the "Big 3" reactor suppliers, recognizes DUPIC's potential. In a patent filed in 2005, describing a new ceramic tube design for holding nuclear fuel, Westinghouse touted how the innovation could lower the cost of using the process, and "make the DUPIC cycle commercially viable."

Peter Mason, president and CEO of GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Canada Inc., called DUPIC an "exciting opportunity" in an interview last fall. "Certainly the industry is looking at it," he said.

In fact, several sources say AECL is an attractive acquisition target partly because of DUPIC, particularly within the context of U.S. President George W. Bush's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), which Canada joined in December.

The initiative aims to develop a nuclear fuel cycle that enhances global energy security while promoting non-proliferation. This means that uranium-supplying countries, such as Canada, would be responsible for taking back and recycling used fuel.

Energy consultant Steve Aplin wonders whether the Canadian government appreciates the role DUPIC could play in GNEP. "I don't know if (Prime Minister) Harper is sending lobbyists to Washington to push this, but if it's viable he should."

Hopwood, meanwhile, points out that it's still very early days for GNEP. "From AECL's point of view, and Canada's point of view, we think DUPIC should be considered a part of it."

AECL is at a crossroads. According to a recent report from the federal Auditor General, the company will spend at least $400 million by the time it completes the design of its third-generation Advanced Candu Reactor – assuming it can. The window of opportunity to sell this reactor is closing, and it's no sure thing Ontario will buy it.

What this means for taxpayers is $400 million potentially down the tubes.

The federal government faces a big decision. Throw more money at AECL so it can start on a fourth-generation reactor it may never sell, or recognize that AECL's best chance is to specialize in something the others don't do.

DUPIC is unique, and has the potential to solve many problems in a nuclear energy market increasingly dominated by light-water reactors. It also gives existing and new Candu 6 reactors a chance to at least minimize the environmental risk we're forced to live with. Canada would corner the market.

If we were really bold? The government would declare that by 2020, or some achievable date, every Candu reactor in service will generate power exclusively from recycled light-water fuel.

It might not be "cleantech" for some, and may go against the principles of others. But it's sure better than the status quo, and it gives AECL a better excuse to soak up taxpayer money.

More from the Toronto Star & Partners

LOADING

Copyright owned or licensed by Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or distribution of this content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited and/or its licensors. To order copies of Toronto Star articles, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com